Who determined the evaluation weightings?
Seven major factors were considered by the project team in their evaluation of crossing alternatives and their selection of the preferred alternative. Each factor was given a weighting to determine the extent to which that factor influences the final results (i.e. identification of the preferred crossing location).
The factors and their weightings as presented by the project team are as follow:
- Traffic and Transportation: 29%
(primarily, maximizing traffic flow through the new corridor) - Natural Environment: 17%
(impact on fisheries, forestry, hydrogeology, etc.) - Cultural Environment: 9%
(negative impact on the quality of life for residents in the crossing area) - Water Use and Resources: 5%
(impact on sailing, canoe clubs, water purification, and waterfront views) - Socio Economic Environment: 7%
(commercial benefits of diverting traffic from downtown into the crossing area) - Land Use and Property: 8%
(alignment with existing land use and plans) - Cost 26%
(estimated capital and ongoing costs)
As discussed in an earlier post, we do know that an online survey was conducted and that a closed-door committee with undisclosed particpants was involved in determining the final weightings. There has been concern and speculation about who was on this committee, and what interests they represent. In particular, questions and concerns have been raised about community representation (or lack thereof) on the committee.
From a conversation with Steve Taylor, project manager for this analysis, we now know a bit more about this committee and the process they went through to determine the weightings.
The objective in assembling the committee was to achieve impartial, unbiased results. In total, there were 25 people on the committee. The committee went through a lengthy process, including review and assessment of each individual utility factor, site visits, and lengthy debates. It sounds like a rigourous, defensible process…but the process is only as impartial and unbiased as the people making up the committee.
We do not know details of the individuals, but here are the interest groups that were represented on the committee:
- Ministry of Transportation (Ontario)
- Ministry of Transportation (Quebec)
- City of Ottawa
- City of Gatineau
- Transport Canada
- Ministry of Fisheries and Oceans
- Ministry of Natural Resources
- Creddo
- Transport 2000
- Rideau Valley Conservation Authority
Were community impacts adequately represented by these interest groups? How much consideration was given by these interest groups to detrimental impacts to quality of life in and around the crossing area? The answer, as we know, is that they gave it enough consideration to make it worth only 9% of the total evaluation criteria.
For the record, Kettle Island ranked 12th out of the 12 crossing locations considered in this analysis with respect to the Cultural Environment (i.e. quality of life) factor.
For a description of the factors and their sub-factors, and a summary of the analysis that was completed for each crossing location, click here.
Loading ...
September 12th, 2008 at 11:11 am
Sad to think we (residents of significantly affected areas) were not asked for our input in weighting the criteria. Our standards of living will be affected every day while the truckers get to their destinations 15 minutes faster! Ironically, it is residents’ tax dollars that will pay for the bridge.
September 12th, 2008 at 11:31 am
I thought the bridge was funded by the federal and provincial governments? If so, it’s more difficult to determine where the revenues come from. You could say that paying for the bridge comes from taxing gasoline and cigarettes.
September 12th, 2008 at 12:51 pm
The public did have at least some opportunity to provide feedback through an online survey. However, this survey was flawed and was only one input considered by the weightings committee. (See: Selection Process – Flawed Analysis?).
September 14th, 2008 at 10:02 pm
[...] 25-member weightings committee was heavily skewed towards transportation and fisheries, and included no community [...]
September 22nd, 2008 at 8:41 am
[...] more information about the categories and weightings, please refer to these earlier postings: Who determined the evaluation weightings? and Selection Process – Flawed [...]
October 1st, 2008 at 6:04 am
Factor 2.5 (8)
“…the movement of biota between natural habitant area…”
Our corridor is one of two that received a no. Is this to suggest we do not have wild animals moving along the Aviation Parkway corridor? If so, I have pictures of deer running through my back yard coming from Aviation Parkway. I have also saw what is most likely a coyote down by the Aviation Museum. Am I to interpret this factor correctly?
October 4th, 2008 at 10:12 pm
[...] impartial, unbiased, and objective panel of people? I beg to differ. We know the organizations that were represented on that panel. And we know that they came to the table with their biases. We also know that there was no one at [...]